{"id":6598,"date":"2026-02-23T06:51:17","date_gmt":"2026-02-23T06:51:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/avocatbucuresti.ro\/?p=6598"},"modified":"2026-11-07T13:45:47","modified_gmt":"2026-11-07T13:45:47","slug":"probe-ilegale-in-procesul-penal-excluderea-probelor-sinteza-clara-si-structurata","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/avocatbucuresti.ro\/en\/probe-ilegale-in-procesul-penal-excluderea-probelor-sinteza-clara-si-structurata\/","title":{"rendered":"Excluding unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The essential legal framework<\/h2>

Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits violence, threats, coercion, promises and inducements used to obtain evidence, and methods affecting a person\u2019s ability to give an account voluntarily.<\/p>

Article 102 establishes the exclusion rules. Evidence obtained by torture and evidence derived from it cannot be used. Unlawfully obtained evidence cannot be used. Nullity of the act ordering, authorising or taking evidence entails exclusion, together with removal of the corresponding evidential material from the file. Derived evidence is excluded where it results directly from unlawfully obtained evidence and could not have been obtained otherwise.<\/p>

Unlawful and derived evidence<\/h2>

Unlawfulness concerns the applicable procedural rules and prohibited methods. Depending on the circumstances, examples may include coercion or a measure carried out without the legally required authority.<\/p>

Derived evidence is not simply any later evidence in the same investigation. The statutory test requires a direct relationship to the unlawful evidence and the absence of another means by which it could have been obtained. Evidence derived from torture is governed by the specific prohibition in Article 102(1).<\/p>

Exclusion and nullity<\/h2>

Article 102(3) links exclusion to nullity of the act ordering, authorising or taking the evidence. Identifying the defect, the relevant nullity regime, who may invoke it and the applicable time limit is therefore important.<\/p>

Academic descriptions of exclusion as autonomous, dependent on nullity or a hybrid remedy do not replace the statutory rules. Nor does describing evidence as reliable automatically permit its use despite an established ground for exclusion.<\/p>

How the legal test is applied<\/h2>

A properly framed application identifies the evidence, the act through which it was obtained and the legal defect. It then explains the applicable sanction and, where derived evidence is challenged, the direct link and why an independent lawful route was unavailable.<\/p>

Fair-trial principles inform the legal framework, but should not be presented as a universal discretionary test allowing a court simply to balance away every procedural prohibition.<\/p>

Who may raise the issue, and when?<\/h2>

The defendant and defence lawyer may raise appropriate challenges under the procedural rules. The preliminary-chamber procedure is a key stage for reviewing the lawfulness of the investigation\u2019s evidence and acts under Articles 342\u2013345.<\/p>

The right to invoke a defect, the possibility of examination of the court\u2019s own motion and the deadline depend on the issue and statutory regime. An abstract reference to an \u201cabsolute nullity\u201d is insufficient without identifying the relevant ground.<\/p>

Constitutional Court decisions and case law concerning technical surveillance must be read against the precise provisions and dates involved. An excluded recording does not automatically exclude every later statement: the applicable derived-evidence test must be examined.<\/p>

Practical consequences<\/h2>